Wide angle lenses for 8x10

[Vaughn]

Tell me more. How are you measuring this. Have you published this yet?

I thought it was due to seeing the size of the moon relative to objects on the horizon (buildings, mountains, etc)...it just seems bigger. Not really an optical illusion, it just looks like one.

I've never been a big fan of wide-angle, and while I occasionally use 480mm (19") and 600mm (24") on 8x10, I prefer to keep it in the range of 210 to 300. Quite pedestrian, I know, but I am more interested in translating what I see, and wide & long lenses distorts that a bit.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The moon appears bigger due to atmospheric effects, kinda like a magnifier. As for focusing, the moon will have a different focus point than stars depending on the eye piece you use. At prime focus well...when I take my 10 inch this week I will tell you the difference, if any....

As for 8x10, here is a pic of the 8x10 I am borrowing. Will shoot D100. Using a 210 G Clarion lens. I checked and you can see the aperture completely thru the cut corners wide open and stopped down. It is the only lens I have will work on 8x10 for now.

I will say this, that big image on the gg is addictive compared to 4x5 and especially 35mm live view and worse the optical view finder.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you want to see the greater part of the sky, look for a Metrogon.

I just ordered a 240mm Nikkor-W which I hope satisfies my desire for a modest WA over 8x10. I have enough super-wides for 4x5 and smaller formats to keep me humble. Really humble.

Once I achieved super-wide LF I rebounded to moderation. Maybe it is old age.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Maybe it is knowledge and wisdom

[Corran]

I go through phases. Lately, have been using more normal and slightly wide lenses, especially on the larger formats. 240mm on 8x10 is a great focal length, as is 210mm. I haven't used my 120mm on 8x10 much in the last few outings, despite always carrying it.

Let's see what you get from your borrowed 8x10 and a 210.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Will do. i hope the film will be here before I leave Friday. If not, my next trip to somewhere. I need to get a jobo expert to process which will also process 4x5. Or one of those jobo type tubes for daylight processing. The expert drum I would be doing inversions. I am building a new house where I am being transferred to and will have a dark room built as well, so eventually I will try my hand at tray processing even though many seem to not like it. But it does offer some simplicity in set up and use.

i ordered 25 sheets of D100. I like this film more or less. It is cheap too and I would rather make mistakes with this film than many sheets of Tmax.

[dodphotography]

Nikkor SW 120mm f/8:



150mm lenses (Nikkor SW, Schneider XL) are way more expensive for the most part and larger, but have greater coverage. Do you need that? Not for general landscape IMO. Understand the effects of perspective distortion if you greatly tilt the camera.

One cheap option in that focal length though is a 6" Metrogon. Will not have the contrast of a modern lens, but still very sharp from my experience. Can be found cheap, and then mounted in shutter, or less cheap, in a shutter already.

210mm is the next step up with a multitude of options. 210mm Graphic Kowa is a stellar option, more affordable than the Computar which has possibly a somewhat larger IC, but the GK is more than enough.

On the other side, if you can deal with roughly a 6x10 negative, Schneider 90mm XL covers about that much. Other option for 75 / 90 is to spend thousands of dollars for a Hypergon.

Final note - unless you plan on contact printing or printing larger than 16x20 on the regular, no reason to get into 8x10 over 4x5. The cost in terms of weight and portability is large.

Call me crazy but I make better work on 8x10... I see the GG better, see how minor details interact better especially on the edges of the frame, and actually find I hit better focus %’s with 810 without having to use a Loupe. I live the cost of 4x5 and the portability (carrying 10 holders is a breeze) but I HATEEEEEEE a 4x5 ground glass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

I've never felt that way myself. In fact, I would say that the much lesser cost of 4x5 film inclines me to be a bit more free with shooting it - perhaps taking a photo I would've decided against on 8x10 or bracketing "just in case" since I'm certainly not perfect with my exposures (or perhaps want to give myself the option to develop differently). I remember quite a few times where my "meh" shot at the moment turned out to be "the" shot of the day.

Of course if that's how you feel for your work, go for it.

The other thing for me is consideration for just how far (or how high) I'm going to be hiking for the landscape work I tend to do. I make better shots when I'm not completely wiped out from a long/difficult hike, and so the difference in total kit weight can become important. While the old adage from Brett Weston that "anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic" might be applicable in the American West, it just isn't here in the Appalachians or Florida Swamps. That image I posted was taken after slogging through a couple miles of flooded forest with my Wista 8x10.

[dodphotography]

I've never felt that way myself. In fact, I would say that the much lesser cost of 4x5 film inclines me to be a bit more free with shooting it - perhaps taking a photo I would've decided against on 8x10 or bracketing "just in case" since I'm certainly not perfect with my exposures (or perhaps want to give myself the option to develop differently). I remember quite a few times where my "meh" shot at the moment turned out to be "the" shot of the day.

Of course if that's how you feel for your work, go for it.

The other thing for me is consideration for just how far (or how high) I'm going to be hiking for the landscape work I tend to do. I make better shots when I'm not completely wiped out from a long/difficult hike, and so the difference in total kit weight can become important. While the old adage from Brett Weston that "anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic" might be applicable in the American West, it just isn't here in the Appalachians or Florida Swamps. That image I posted was taken after slogging through a couple miles of flooded forest with my Wista 8x10.

There’s the power of the Wehman... at 34 years old I should be able to carry this rig anywhere for years to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

Yes I get that, as I have the "ultralight" version of the Wehman myself (and I'm one year younger than you).

Nevertheless, there is a significant weight penalty for the entire system, including bigger tripod, much larger film holders, oftentimes bigger lenses, etc.

I invite you to come on the Appalachian Trail with me for 8-10 miles and see which you prefer . I've hiked up to the highest point on the AT in GA with my Wehman...not a fun day.

Of course, as mentioned in another thread, enlarging from 8x10 is a bear without huge, hard to find enlargers, so since I like to print larger than 8x10 regularly, there is simply no other option than staying small and enlarging from 4x5. I find no meaningful difference between 4x5 enlarged 2x and an 8x10 contact print unless inspecting with a loupe.